Slashdot Log In
FCC And More HDTV Rules
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Jan 20, 2001 08:28 PM
from the good-thing-we-can't-let-the-market-decide-huh dept.
from the good-thing-we-can't-let-the-market-decide-huh dept.
Logic Bomb writes: "The New York Times has a story (free reg req) on the latest twist in the battles over High Definition Television. The FCC has concluded that cable companies can not be compelled to carry both the digital and analog versions of a broadcast station's signal. This will definitely make the transition period to full digital even more turbulent, since in individual markets people who have or have not updated their viewing equipment may end up watching different channels." deebaine points also to this CNN story on same; all this HDTV is going to get worse before it gets better.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
FCC And More HDTV Rules
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 139 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Broadcast TV (Score:4)
something more than once).
From the advertising industry pov, there are only so many Lexus commercials that they can usefully air. They need to sell things like second mortages, Tide, PineSol, and Doritos on there too. They need to sell monster truck show ads. Point being, the market does not involve only those people who make enough money to spend $300 on a tv set.
A tv set is something that should be, like a radio, low threshhold of entry into the market. You should be able to get a shitty tv at the tag sale and be able to watch broadcast shows on it.
If everything is mediated through expensive digital cables, there will be an even greater media divide than there is right now. Broadcast tv does some useful stuff, like telling people where to vote, what the weather will be, and where the traffic jams are. Many of these people don't have the time or the resources to look anywhere else. Usually, even the poorest family has access to a tv set, not the internet or even the newspaper.
Advertisers, wanting to reach all markets, value the broadcast TV market and hopefully should resist any attempt to exclude poorer markets from watching television.
Bad news for HDTV (Score:3)
The latest news just shows us that the cable companies already have enough of a foothold to stall indefinitely, and they have obvious motives to do so, since the ultimate goal would be to make it possible to get better-than-current-cable picture quality without purchasing anything, at least in urban areas. At least that's the way I understand the goal, correct me if I'm wrong.
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:3)
Turn your brightness down, and/or get a better DVD player. This is a common symptom of poor calibration.
HDTV is like IPv6 (Score:3)
Just say no (Score:4)
Just don't get HDTV, unless the laws have changed such that fair use comes back and we won't have to be subject to the controls on copying and playback of the digital signal. If they are dependent on a patented signal which must be licensed from a consortium of content providers, then all the builders of end user equipment will be beholden to them, and it will be DeCSS lawsuits all over again.
Only if enough people who realize this decide *not* to buy HDTV is there hope. Yes, it will be painful if you can't get an analog signal, but just do without. Otherwise, we will be gladly cedeing any freedoms we might have to the content providers.
-Rob
Re:really that informative? (Score:3)
Heh, I'm inclined to agree, +5 for that was a little over the top.
I should've put in a plug for Video Essentials, [amazon.com] a very useful disc for TV/monitor calibration. Once a TV/DVD player combination is set up according to VE's instructions, a lot of commonly-reported "artifacts" simply won't be visible any longer. Sharpness and brightness are the two most frequently-abused controls on just about any TV set, and Video Essentials can really help you bring them in line.
Nothing can salvage a badly-mastered disc. Fortunately, though, the real stinkers are a lot less common than you'd expect. Most R1 DVDs from the major studios look darned good these days.
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:3)
I don't know about you, but I don't re-watch good films because I've forgotten what happened in them, or how good they were. I watch good films for the overall experience, for the same reason that we listen to good music, or eat good food more than once.
I can never get enough of Stanely Kubrick films, and I know a good portion of the
Personally, I am going to look at HDTV once it's been around for a while and the benefits have become a little more sought-after. But IMO the only quality it has going for it, in reality, is the additional number of channels available.
There is just simply no way that millions of people are going to turn in their old sets in favour of 'better quality', when the reality is that the majority of people are content in watching poor reception on tiny TV's.
Re:Set-top boxes (Score:4)
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:3)
bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:5)
The more I read about all the bulshit going on with and around HDTV, the more I think I'm just going to not upgrade to it at all. When my regular set is no longer useful, I'll make it into a great big 35" aquarium.
Seriously, how many really good TV shows are there on TV now? CNN- and MSNBC-type info can all be gotten online. This leaves local news (read the paper) and fiction. OK, so you want to spend how much money to be able to watch Buffy, X-Files, Angel, StarCrap, et al.? I'm leaving asides sports games, but for me this is a total non-issue. Hmmm, movie playback... Unless you spend $100K on your home theater, it's better on the big screen (and if your memory is good it's pretty pointless to watch something more than once).
I suspect many people will hit this point of diminishing returns where the marginal utility realized from upgrading to HDTV is just too small (hastened by the prevalence of PCs and net appliances providing a roughly equivalent feed of information). If the broadcasters and manufacturers wish to avoid this fate they'd better begin acting intelligently real quick (interoperable standards, ease of use (including taping and reproduction) similar to prextant standards, etc.). If they don't I suspect that my as-yet unconceived child(ren) will ask me what this "TV" thing was that I and their grandparents blabber on about...
This is not to say that there won't be some form of intellectual cotton-candy available as an opiate to the anesthetised masses. It might just be tcp/ip based instead of TV-feeding-trough based.
--
Fuck Censorship.
Better link (Score:4)
My experiences with the HDTV beast. (Score:3)
Some clients left impressed, while others left scratching their heads, but I think the most interesting thing about HDTV, is that while we had some large screen $10,000 HDTV's to display some of the video, we were also using standard Dell monitors to display HDTV signals as well. The picture quality is great, though limited to the 21 inches or so of the monitors we had on hand. Now if I just had a 40 inch "monitor" I'd be all set for the HDTV "revolution" if and when it ever arrives.
High definition Penguins. The Linux Pimp [thelinuxpimp.com]
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:3)
A conventional NTSC image has 525 lines scanned at 29.97 Hz with a horizontal resolution of 427 pixels. This gives 3.35 MHz (assuming 2 pixels per video cycle) as a minimum bandwidth to carry the video information without compression.
If one decides to move to an HDTV image that is 1050 lines by 600 pixels (keeping the same frame rate), then this means a bandwidth of 18 MHz. Clearly we have a problem here -- as the current terrestrial channel allocations are limited to 6 MHz!
(As an aside, the word "terrestrial" as used by TV people means conventional wireless TV transmission. This is to differentiate it from satellite or cable.)
The options for terrestrial broadcast (assuming a 20 MHz bandwidth) are roughly as follows:
1. Change the channel allocation system from 6 MHz to 20 MHz.
2. Compress the signal to fit inside the 6 MHz existing bandwidths
3. Allocate multiple channels (2 with compression or three without) for the HDTV signal
Options 1 and 2 are virtually incompatible with current NTSC service. About the only possibility for maintaining compatibility is simultaneous broadcast of NTSC information over certain channels and HDTV information over other channels.
Option 3 does allow compatibility -- as the first 6 MHz of the signal could keep to the standard NTSC broadcasting and the remaining be additional augmentation signal for HDTV. Typically, in this type of augmentation system, an existing VHF channel would be tied to one (or two) UHF channels. The VHF channel would carry information similar to the current NTSC signal and the UHF channel (or channels would carry augmented high resolution information).
I have a WinTV-HD (Score:4)
(Some might also say I paid $400 to beta test for Hauppauge, but that's another story)
HDTV is beautiful. Those who haven't seen it are the ones who think it's not worth the bother. I don't have a great setup either, basically just a 2nd hand Panasonic 30" 16:9 monitor I purchased over Ebay (with lots burn-in, sigh) my PC and the Hauppauge WinTV-HD. After seeing this I'd say it's definately worth it just to display on a larger PC monitor, say 19" or larger. I can only imagine what it will look like on a progressive RPTV.
I watched my first ever football game last week on CBS and was amazed at how sharp and clear things were. CBS clearly leads the way with original Hi-definition programing. You just have to see Football or a sitcom like Raymond in Hi-def to see what you've been missing.
The only thing is I live in an apartment. I use a plain old Rat-Shack UHF Double-Bowtie for reception. I can receive the 3 networks and Fox, that's it. I can't put up an antenna of any type. My cable company won't carry any HDTV, not even the local channels so the other 4 aren't available to me, not to mention the premium HBO-HD and SHO-HD channels.
Most folks are in the same situation as I am. Over 60% of the US population gets their TV reception exclusively from cable tv. If cable doesn't carry HDTV it will fail. Simple as that.
You don't see a difference? (Score:3)
Do you see a big difference in quality between DVD and regular TV broadcast movies? Because HDTV is about twice as good as DVD (or more).
If you really can't see a difference, than you probably were not watching a properly adjusted HDTV, or it was not receiving a high quality HDTV signal.
To be honest.. (Score:3)
If HDTV becomes a mandated product (because of FCC's decision) and more of them hit the market, in no time will current VCR and DVD players become obsolete. Oh sure, there is backwards compatibility... till when? The same which happens with home surround systems: my Yamaha DSP E1000 does only Dolby Surround 2.0, so it's obsolete, I should rather buy a AX1 which supports 5.1 and DTS. And what next? Some fucker will invent Dolby Shorpround 10.5, for a "really really realistic experience". Fuck that.
So, HDTV anyone? And why?